Welcome to Monday! We’ve got lots of fun and important stories to share this week. But lets not forget where we came from.

Here are the best bits of news and bike-related reporting we came across last week…

Elevating women and people of color: Meet Gritchelle Fallesgon, one of the founders of Friends on Bikes, in this short but sweet Q & A she did with the adventure riding enthusiasts at Our Mother the Mountain.

Highway boondoggle detection guide: This “anatomy of a highway boondoggle” should be required reading for every elected official and policymaker in America. Please stop wasting our money. Thanks.

Another manifestion of car cultural bias: Ben Fried from Streetsblog NYC is doing great work reporting on a common issue with police officials nationwide: The tendency to misrepresent traffic crashes in a way that unfairly absolves the person operation the motorized vehicle.

Rubbing it in our face:As this Streetfilms video shows, there are now enough miles of protected bike lanes in New York City that you can ride in a relatively low-stress environment through commercial streets (not backstreets like our neighborhood greenways!) for up to 25 miles at a time.

Bike more, live longer: BREAKING: A major study has found a miracle drug to battle cancer and heart disease. It’s calling bicycling and walking it’s available without prescription.

NOTE: We love your comments and work hard to ensure they are productive, considerate, and welcoming of all perspectives. Disagreements are encouraged, but only if done with tact and respect. If you see a mean or inappropriate comment, please contact us and we'll take a look at it right away. Also, if you comment frequently, please consider holding your thoughts so that others can step forward. Thank you — Jonathan

87 Comments

peejayApril 24, 2017 at 10:49 am

I’m really having a hard time with the Street Trust falling in line on the freeway expansion plan, just to get some scraps for Safe Routes to School. Freeway expansion not only takes money from worthwhile projects, but causes actual, long-lasting, structural and economic harm to the region, none of which is alleviated by the “throw them a bone” active transportation line items rolled into this project.

I’d way rather just have no transportation projects than this garbage.

Didn’t the BTA make this same mistake with the CRC, only to finally reverse course and look foolish later?

Yes, the BTA did that. New name, old tactics, and it’s wrong. From Joe Cortright’s article (quoting MN activists):

“Every dollar you get is going to be bought with dozens of dollars for suburban commuters, their parking lots and drive throughs and their mindset continuing to oppose your efforts at every turn. You win more by defunding them than by eating their table scraps.”

He brings up basically every pro-car and anti-bike/transit meme that we know is wrong. Maybe the best (worst) gem out of an impressive collection: “Moreover, the emissions associated with driving are now so minor that the real concern should be reducing air pollution from congestion.”

Journalists have repeatedly shown a propensity for believing alarmist claims about global warming based primarily on computer modeling of the future. But the only thing that really matters for public policy is empirical data. If the evidence shows that Oregon is a net emitter of greenhouse gases and that reducing those gases would demonstrably make us better off, then policy makers should consider taking action. But that evidence does not yet exist.

And all kinds of fun information on his attempts to undercut emissions reduction efforts:

And it is worth calling to mind for just a moment that the same Mr. Charles was the head of the Oregon Environmental Council some decades back. He is quite aware (one would imagine) what sort of shell game he’s playing here. These days I think we would call someone like him a troll.

Sorry, I have to point out one more bit of ridiculousness in his article: the claim that Oregon “stopped building new highways” (by which he means urban freeways) after I-205 was completed. He’s not even factually correct: how about OR-224 in Clackamas? I just drove this slab on Friday for the first time.

224 from I-205 to OR-212 is definitely a brand-new highway. It was not there last time I went that way less than 3 years ago (I used to take the existing 224 through Milwaukie, then 205 and looping around to 212 past the Freddie’s DC when driving out to Mt Hood). And it is a true FREEWAY, with no bike lanes or bike access. Actually, that’s really too bad, because this would be a shorter, more direct and probably safer route for biking (fewer intersections and traffic lights, same reason it’s better for cars) for getting out of town in that direction, compared with 212.

Yes. Called Criteria pollutants: NOx, SOx, HC, CO, etc. Might convenient to fall back on a 1970s definition of pollution (and one for which control devices were comparatively easy to incorporate into the design of the automobile, unlike CO2, for which there is no ‘capture’ device.

The main example of a collision and the contradictory details surrounding it, that streetsblog uses to make its claim that police are “exonerating” people driving and involved in collisions, is an odd one.

In that particular collision there does appear, for some reason that’s not based on known fact, that the police investigation arrived at a determination of the direction the person riding the bike…that was contrary to the direction observed by at least one witness to the person riding the bike (another person riding a bike a block away behind, which in NYC, might be 400′). From that story:

“…NYPD’s public information office could not say how crash investigators determined Davis’s direction of travel. …”

I don’t know from that article which has no facts to back up its assumptions, that the police in NYC, or anywhere, are “exonerating” people that drive and are involved in collisions with vulnerable road users, from responsibility for collisions. I think the word ‘exonerate’, relatively speaking, is a big fancy word that some of the people using it to report on stories about police investigations, apparently don’t really understand the meaning of, or how police investigations work.

My understanding, and I’m not saying I’m absolutely certain this is how they’re supposed to work…is that the police officer responding to a collision, is simply the initial step in the enforcement of law that may be called for regarding persons involved in collisions. If the facts support a citation, the police can issue one; if not, they can’t.

The police aren’t ‘judge and jury’, and they don’t ‘exonerate’ people, though it seems all too popular for some people to jump to that assumption. To be exonerated from having done something wrong, a person has to first of all, have been charged with having done something wrong. If the facts prove they actually haven’t done something wrong, the charges can be dropped, and the person is exonerated from having done anything wrong.

This only makes sense if police are computers. Since they are not, in reality, we face the problem of police assuming innocence on the part of automobile users and failing to bring the correct charges in the first place.

“…For example, “the bicyclist wasn’t wearing a helmet” implies fault on the part of the bicyclist, thereby absolving the driver in some way for their part in the collision. …” kristen t

The sample phrase you offer, is a simple reporting statement. Which in itself, it implies no fault. Some people reading it, for various reasons, may find themselves…interpreting…the statement to imply fault. The police nor anyone else should have to depart from simple reporting statements to devise language specifically to try prevent people from making false interpretations of statements mad.

For a revised sample phrase of the one you offered, I’ll offer one that definitely implies fault: ‘the bicyclist likely suffered a head injury due to their not having worn a helmet.’. That statement does not definitely say the fault for the head injury was due to the person riding not having worn a helmet, but the implication that they are at fault, is clear.

I’m afraid, despite all the hi-tech devices so many people have access to, and accordingly, the vast stores of education and information literally at their fingertips without so much as having to leave their house, that people seem to becoming increasingly illiterate. Or maybe its paranoia and mistrust, that causes people to make wild interpretations from simple reporting statements the police use with regards to traffic incidents they respond to.

Thanks for your thoughts on this. I don’t get the impression that without facts, you’re personally going to make such interpretations, but it does seem odd to me when literate people do so.

“The sample phrase you offer, is a simple reporting statement. Which in itself, it implies no fault. Some people reading it, for various reasons, may find themselves…interpreting…the statement to imply fault. The police nor anyone else should have to depart from simple reporting statements to devise language specifically to try prevent people from making false interpretations of statements mad.”

Paragraphs like this do more to weaken literacy than the vast stores of education and information available to us.

Oh c’mon. How so? Try a little harder to understand what the situation is. On this weblog, I try to write about ideas I have in mind, in very exacting language, because I’m well aware that unless I do, some people reading here, will interpret from it, intentionally or unintentionally, a meaning different than I’ve said. So as a result of my wanting to be clear about what I have in mind, what I write can be lengthy and more awkward to read than ordinary casual conversation.

I’m unhappy to have to recognize it, but it seems some people will devise to draw whatever meaning they want from what someone has written. To some extent, with some kinds of writing, that’s alright, in fact…that’s what the reader is supposed to do with creative writing. But, sarcastic joking aside, police report language is not creative writing. It’s simple and functional language for reporting the details of what was seen and discovered. The reader is supposed to read that language as such, and not use it to build some kind of conspiracy theory.

If someone wants to build a case, based on facts, that the police are giving people that drive and are involved in collisions with vulnerable road users…a ‘go free’ pass, knowing that they did something wrong to cause the collision, I’m all for that.

Please though, don’t expect me to accept that the police are putting the fault for the collision or injuries they sustained….upon a person riding a bike and that was involved in a collision with someone driving a motor vehicle…because the police may use in their reports, a statement like “the bicyclist wasn’t wearing a helmet”

You don’t need, a comma, in there. It’s confusing, to read, a simple statement, with extra commas in it. Commas are used, to group phrases, and when you, put them in a sentence where they, don’t belong, it requires way more effort on the part of the reader to understand what it is that you’re trying to say.

“Which in itself, it implies no fault.”

That is not a sentence, and even if it was, it wouldn’t need the “, it” part.

“Some people reading it, for various reasons, may find themselves…interpreting…the statement to imply fault.”

What are the dot dot dots for?

“The police nor anyone else should have to depart from simple reporting statements to devise language specifically to try prevent people from making false interpretations of statements mad.”

Is this the exacting language you speak of? It seems to be missing a word in the middle and a letter at the end.

It hurts my eyes and my head to rearrange your words in my head in a way that lines up with language as we know it. When I don’t have the patience for it, I just scroll past your comments, which is a shame because every so often you contribute something in a way that I hadn’t yet considered.

dan…In statements I write, that include more than one idea which I feel, need to be distinguished from each other, I will sometimes use commas to give them some separation, so the person reading, won’t be confused as to what I’m saying.

I use the series of periods around words or phrases mid-statement, to emphasize the selected word or statement, but also partly because I don’t know, and don’t want to fuss with learning the coding that will let me put words in italics or bold face. But also simply because pauses between words and phrases is more similar to how people often talk in conversation.

Though I do proofread what I write, occasionally I get in a hurry and leave off a letter of a word, use the wrong variation of a word, etc, but I think, usually not so serious of an error that people reading can’t figure out what I’m trying to say.

I’m sorry if you’re struggling with reading my writing style. Through the effort, you might be gaining more than you realize. Something you wrote in your comment: “… with language as we know it. …”. I don’t know what ‘language’, and who the ‘we’ is that you’re referring to.

I don’t know from what material you’re doing most of the reading you have the most ease understanding, and anyway…I’m not writing just for you, but for myself and anyone that cares to read what I have to say. If it’s too much effort to read, and not worth the time, I’d just say ‘the heck with it’. I do this myself, frequently.

Though not a fast reader or writer by any means, I read the times and the journal, but not every story, and not every word. I don’t think my writing style is any more complex or harder to comprehend than the writing styles of some of the reporters for those papers…in fact, I’m sure it’s less so, because I find myself sometimes struggling to understand the sentences and phrases those guys use.

Stating it this way would have been much easier to read. One comma instead of five:

“In statements I write that include more than one idea which I feel need to be distinguished from each other, I will sometimes use commas to give them some separation so the person reading won’t be confused as to what I’m saying.”

“Another option is just to not read overly long, comma spliced comments by a poster whose name can be easily recognized. The power of choice is amazing.” resopmonk

That’s right, resopmonk…don’t read what I write. It certainly won’t bother me if you don’t, read what I’ve got to say. Why put yourself to the effort of reading something you don’t like, or doesn’t agree with your point of view.

‘Oh man!…look at all the comments he uses!!’ ‘Gosh! …why does he do that!!’ ‘Why can’t he just write stuff ‘the way that we do’, so we don’t have to make an effort to understand some different point of view than the one that is so precious to us!!

As you said, you, resopmonk, have ‘the power of choice to read or not read, anything you want, and that power can be amazing in its awesomeness’.

…dan…I like the way I wrote what I did, better than your suggested revision. If you read it as I wrote it, pausing slightly at each comma, and giving yourself that moment to think a little more about what was written, you may understand why I like it better. Slow down…reading doesn’t have to be a frenzied race, all of the time.

“Why put yourself to the effort of reading something you don’t like, or doesn’t agree with your point of view.”

Why put it that way? My complaint is that your writing style is extremely difficult to digest because it is written with a bunch of needless pauses. If there’s nothing for you to learn from my criticism, then continue on in the style you believe in, and I’ll take your advice and scroll past.

“…My complaint is that your writing style is extremely difficult to digest because it is written with a bunch of needless pauses. If there’s nothing for you to learn from my criticism, then continue on in the style you believe in, and I’ll take your advice and scroll past.” dan a

dan, thanks for your efforts in reading what I, and everyone else posting comments to bikeportland stories, writes here. Speaking for myself, I do appreciate that effort.

The pauses I include in what I write, using comments and multiple periods, aren’t to me, needless. I’m including them for a reason, which is actually…although you and some other people reading here seem not to be finding them so…to help people absorb what I’m saying, a little more easily.

I suppose the writing style I’m choosing to use, is based some on the material I read and hear, which I’ve mentioned before, tends to be the NYtimes, WSjournal, and also the news hour on pbs. I think the writing style I’m using, may in some ways be similar to the writing and speaking patterns used in those sources.

No doubt, not everyone reading here, likes and reads or listens as the case may be, to that material, and that’s completely understandable. Everyone has their own choices to make, and if they’d rather watch fox news, the big three network news shows or cnn, or just get their news from facebook and twitter, at least it’s their choice to do that. Nobody is forcing them to do otherwise.

Actually, I am learning from your criticism of my writing style. Because you and some others have mentioned your having difficulty picking up on what I’m saying in my writing, I will be looking more carefully as a proofread, to see that it consistently reads what I had in mind, in a reasonably comprehensible manner. I’m mostly likely not though, going to change my writing style to match some style script that’s closer to various casual writing and conversational styles simply because somebody reading bikeportland would like it that way.

Of course “the bicyclist wasn’t wearing a helmet” implies fault. And the problem with saying that something is a “simple reporting statement” is that the simple choice to include a piece of information in a report colors the report.

That something is a simple fact doesn’t mean it doesn’t imply anything. A report could state “The cyclist wasn’t wearing a helmet, wasn’t wearing reflective gear, was wearing dark clothing, had only a single front light and no rear light, had no side reflectors, and was riding in the dark.” Or it could state, “It appears the cyclist was fully compliant with all laws”. Both could be equally correct for the same cyclist in the same situation, and all are “simple reporting statements”, but one gives a totally different impression than the other.

The same could be done for the driver and vehicle. But you rarely see information presented negatively about the driver unless it is in regard to something clearly illegal. You don’t see, “The driver had not been tested for night vision, the vehicle had not been serviced for 6 months, the vehicle was dark, the vehicle lacked disc brakes and dynamic traction control, it could not be confirmed that the driver was operating within the speed limit…”

“The vehicle in question had not been serviced for 3 months, and was driving with 4 year-old tires. The particular vehicle model is known for poor forward and blind spot visibility, due to the low-profile windshield and side-rear windows.”

This is what we would see if police and reporters treated cyclists and drivers equally.

This reminds me of a news report down in Eugene yesterday. A pedestrian was struck while crossing a multi-lane road. Added to that was a statement by the motorist that the pedestrian was crossing against the light, given as fact.

To further fuel the impression of guilt on the part of the pedestrian, it was noted that he was looking at his phone at the time he was struck and wearing dark clothing. As if that isn’t enough, the reporter said it was pitch black at the time of the collision, in spite of the collision taking place a mere 30 minutes prior to sunrise, which isn’t even considered part of the hours of darkness in many states.

So, there’s a lot of guilt loaded onto the pedestrian here, but he wasn’t able to give his version because he was at the hospital being treated for serious injuries at the time. Had the reporter stuck to the facts, a motorist struck a pedestrian who was crossing the road at a marked and signalized crossing, there would be no bias. When adding the statements of one party, there should at least be some acknowledgment that these may be self-serving and not accurate.

The police are apparently buying the zombie-walker story; there was no indication that they are looking into the phone records of the motorist to see if she was distracted by her own phone activity. In fact, it appears no one even asked about distraction on the driver’s part, which clearly indicates a pro-motorist bias when she ran into someone who should have been plainly visible to anyone paying attention.

The sample statement, ‘“the bicyclist wasn’t wearing a helmet”, doesn’t imply, but instead, directly states a fact: someone riding a bike, was not wearing a helmet.

Some people apparently are allowing themselves, maybe somewhat unconsciously, to interpret simple reporting statements to imply or mean something much broader than the statement itself implies or means. That’s not comprehensive reading. What I mean when I say “not comprehensive reading”, is that some people reading are allowing themselves to interpret more from a statement than the statement is saying…and this leads to confusion and misunderstanding.

The inclusion of ANY statement in a report implies that the fact that is being stated is relevant. A report could instead have said, “The cyclist was fully compliant with the helmet law”. That gives a much different impression to anyone reading the report.

Can you honestly say that a report that states “the driver appeared to be compliant with all laws” would not give reader a different impression than one that stated, “The driver had left an event where heavy drinking had been observed. He had been talking on his cell phone at the time of the accident. He had a DUI arrest in 2013, and was possibly upset due to his recent divorce, and to a restraining order filed against him by his former spouse. He had been fired three days ago. There was no indication he had lowered his speed to mitigate against poor visibility due to rain, and in fact there was no evidence to show he was not speeding”, etc.?

All those are, as you say, directly stating facts. Yet they give a totally different impression than the equally factual, “The driver appeared to be compliant with all laws”.

So yes, that something is a fact doesn’t mean it doesn’t imply anything. (Almost) everybody knows this, and people use it everyday to convey what they want to convey, using facts.

The U.S. once raced the USSR in rowing. The U.S. reported, “USA beats USSR in crew race”. The USSR reported, “USSR finishes second in crew race, USA next to last”. Both are factually true, but give differing impressions.

It is a simple reporting statement that changes the perception of the media and the public. The change in perception, the mental “shifting of blame” from the perpetrator to the victim– that somehow, not wearing a helmet makes the bicyclist partly to blame for getting hit– is what I was talking about.

Words matter in reporting these things. Crash, not accident– accident implies there was absolutely nothing anyone could have done to prevent the collision. Using language that implies the vehicle was solely responsible for a collision and that the driver was merely sitting passive inside (“the truck ran the red light and crashed into the house opposite” is a good one– what was the driver doing when his vehicle decided to go rogue?).

“…that somehow, not wearing a helmet makes the bicyclist partly to blame for getting hit– is what I was talking about. …” kristen t

kristen…I see what you’re saying, but I’m not buying it. Mention in police statements, news reports and so forth about collisions involving people riding bikes, in which a person riding a bike, sustained a head injury, suggests the person riding may have been partly responsible for the head injury, due to their not having had the head protection a helmet can offer.

Whether or not people riding a bike, wear helmets or not, doesn’t factor into a collision occurring, but does factor into the degree of impact that a person falling from a bike may sustain to their head.

Bike advocacy can be a great thing, and I’m glad to see people being involved, but I think that people allowing their enthusiasm for advocacy to lead them to draw inaccurate interpretations of simple reporting statements, isn’t helping towards gaining improvements in conditions for biking on the road.

wsbob—in addition to all the other arguments people have given against your viewpoint, here’s two more.

First, “simple reporting statements” such as “the cyclist wasn’t wearing a helmet” are often included in reports about collisions where there was no head injury at all. So the fact is irrelevant. All it does is imply that it IS relevant, meaning that if the cyclist had behaved differently, the outcome may have changed. And the same thing about drivers or vehicles–something about the car or action that isn’t illegal–is rarely mentioned. People have already given you a dozen examples.

Second, even when there is a collision with a head injury and even death, the helmet wearing can be irrelevant. For instance, a driver hits a cyclist and kills him by running over him or breaking his neck. Again, all the helmet statement does is give the impression the cyclist might be alive if he’d had a helmet. You’ll see that about drivers in regard to seatbelts (which unlike helmets are required) but not about anti-lock brakes or, again, any of a dozen examples people have already given you.

“…First, “simple reporting statements” such as “the cyclist wasn’t wearing a helmet” are often included in reports about collisions where there was no head injury at all. So the fact is irrelevant. All it does is imply that it IS relevant, meaning that if the cyclist had behaved differently, the outcome may have changed. And the same thing about drivers or vehicles–something about the car or action that isn’t illegal–is rarely mentioned. People have already given you a dozen examples.

Second, even when there is a collision with a head injury and even death, the helmet wearing can be irrelevant. For instance, a driver hits a cyclist and kills him by running over him or breaking his neck. Again, all the helmet statement does is give the impression the cyclist might be alive if he’d had a helmet. You’ll see that about drivers in regard to seatbelts (which unlike helmets are required) but not about anti-lock brakes or, again, any of a dozen examples people have already given you.” q

q…people don’t have to like the viewpoint I present about the assumptions and interpretations they’re making with regards to police collision report statements. I feel they’re not being careful to limit their interpretation of police statements to the basic reporting of fact those statements generally are, and I think someone should be bringing that lack of care to light.

First example you offer: mention in report, of a cyclist not wearing helmet when involved in a collision, out of which the cyclist suffered no head injury. You feel the mention is irrelevant. I feel the mention is relevant, because it notes that the person riding the bike, though they didn’t suffer a head injury, was not benefited by the basic, modestly priced protection that use of a bike helmet could provide them with.

I feel such mention to the public in police reports is a plea to the public to avail themselves of basic protection for potential hazards unique to riding bikes, in general, but particularly in traffic, where just a bump from a motor vehicle can cause someone to lose their balance, fall to the ground and bang their head.

Second example you offered: mention of a cyclist not having worn a helmet, being involved in a collision with a traumatic neck injury, doesn’t give me the impression you say it does. Impression I get from the mention, is that the use of a helmet would have given protection to the head of the person riding, that they didn’t have because they weren’t wearing one. Nobody really can know what type of collision they’re going to be involved in, if they’re ever so unlucky as to have that happen, or what kind of injury or impact their body will sustain, or to which part or parts of their body.

Some people seem to think the police, and in general, people that aren’t hot about biking, have it out for people that use bikes on the streets and roads for travel and recreation. In the case of the police, that doesn’t much add up. They’re public servants. Doesn’t make much difference to them whether people biking on the road, or not. People that aren’t police, and are using the road, seem to experience the range of reactions, good and bad, the latter being anxiety, frustration, irritation, worry, fear, anger and so on, but don’t see that having much to do with basic police collision report statements.

If the majority of people reading this weblog, do not choose to have presented to them, contrasting viewpoints about transportation issues related to biking, they can convey their wish to the owner-editor-writer of this weblog, and as he sees fit, he can edit comments and stories to be a ‘one point of view’ weblog, on a level similar to some of the political weblogs out there. I’m not personally interested in seeing important issues from a single point of view. I want to know what intelligent insights people may have that differ from my own on important issues.

“This discussion has been helpful if for no other reason than it has clarified for us how w.s.b.o.b thinks, learns, engages with other points of view.” watts

And how is it that you believe I “…thinks, learns, engages with other points of view.”, watts? Sounds to me like you’re not willing, or prepared to explain what you have in mind.

Before responding to them, I try to read everyone’s comments with great care, and with the respect due what they have to say.. If someone offers good information, or a constructive point of view, I like letting them know, and adding to it if I have something to offer also. I respect and appreciate that type of comment.

When someone uses their opportunity to comment, to be mean, or to say or insinuate something nasty about somebody that’s merely expressing a different, legitimate and civil point of view…they lose my respect.

“Nobody really can know what type of collision they’re going to be involved in”

Well, in that case perhaps you can explain why those not on bikes but in cars aren’t symmetrically ranked by the evaluating authorities as to whether they have taken all possible precautions (you never can know) against injuries? Did the soccer mom put neck braces on her infants in the poorly secured car seats that were facing the wrong way in the back seat? No? Well…

wsbob–you wrote, “If the majority of people reading this weblog, do not choose to have presented to them, contrasting viewpoints about transportation issues related to biking, they can convey their wish to the owner-editor-writer of this weblog, and as he sees fit, he can edit comments and stories to be a ‘one point of view’ weblog, on a level similar to some of the political weblogs out there…”

Yes, of course they can. Everybody knows that.

In my case, I’m not arguing against you because I don’t like that you’re posting opinions different from mine, I’m arguing because I think your views are wrong.

wsbob–you responded to me with, “First example you offer: mention in report, of a cyclist not wearing helmet when involved in a collision, out of which the cyclist suffered no head injury. You feel the mention is irrelevant. I feel the mention is relevant, because it notes that the person riding the bike, though they didn’t suffer a head injury, was not benefited by the basic, modestly priced protection that use of a bike helmet could provide them with.”

In other words, it’s irrelevant to the accident report. And as people keep saying, police are not making those same types of comments aimed at drivers, outside of perhaps seat belt use when an occupant is injured. But I’ve never seen a report say, “The driver wasn’t wearing a seatbelt” unless the driver was injured.

And yes, helmets can provide protection, but so do lots of things related to cars and drivers. But again, you don’t see reports saying the driver’s windshield was dirty, his headlight was burned out, he WAS wearing a seatbelt, his car was old, his tires were worn (or new) or any of a number of things that are just as easy to see as whether someone was wearing a helmet.

If police are going to tack on public service announcements to their crash reports by commenting on what a cyclist did or didn’t do–especially when they’re going beyond what’s even legally required–then they should add things drivers did and didn’t do. And certainly they shouldn’t be commenting on things cyclists are doing or not, when they’re NOT commenting on things the driver did or not do that could have been the main reason the cyclist was injured or killed.

Police aren’t judge and jury, but another example is the case we recently saw where police noted that the bicyclist was wearing black clothing, while failing to note the estimated speed or course of the driver who ran them down (if there were brake marks, etc.).

People often liken the helmet thing to seatbelts, because police can ‘implicate’ a driver by noting that they weren’t wearing one (which has no bearing on the cause of collision). We know a bicyclist or pedestrian can improve visibility by wearing clothing that’s reflective (or worst case bright, which is different), or even better a tail light. In my example (noting the cyclist’s clothing), the motoring equivalent might be noting that a driver’s vehicle did not have blind spot radar, in a right hook collision. (Or even better – that the driver failed to utilize a motor vehicle equipped with the latest innovations designed to protect others on the roadway… you get my drift, language framing matters).

Streetsblog may not have used the best example (nor me, for that matter), but it’s painfully obvious when you can almost nightly turn on the TV and watch stories starting with “A car ran into a [house|pedestrian|pool|cyclist|storefront|etc]”… followed of course by car commercials showing city streets and curvy mountain roads with nobody on them.

“Police aren’t judge and jury, but another example is the case we recently saw where police noted that the bicyclist was wearing black clothing, while failing to note the estimated speed or course of the driver who ran them down (if there were brake marks, etc.). …” pete

Someone riding a bike is either wearing a bike helmet, or they’re not; it’s easy to make the distinction by simple observation…no estimation or investigation required. Not the same with estimating the speed at which someone driving a motor vehicle, was traveling when the were involved in a collision, or the path their vehicle had taken, prior to and at the time of the collision.

The basic premise of claims made, that the police are unjustly blaming collisions having occurred, on people biking, lacks substance. Why would the police do something like that? It makes no difference to their job whether, in collisions involving people driving motor vehicles and people riding bikes, the person driving was at fault, or the person riding was at fault, or both were at fault. Same difference either way to them….they still get paid, regardless of who is at fault.

“Why would the police do something like that? It makes no difference to their job whether, in collisions involving people driving motor vehicles and people riding bikes, the person driving was at fault, or the person riding was at fault, or both were at fault. Same difference either way to them….they still get paid, regardless of who is at fault.”

If you had read (and I suppose processed) the dozens of comments by people writing here in this thread, explaining some of the reasons why the cops might do this – that incidentally have no bearing on their salaries—as if that were the most important thing here, or governed how they conduct themselves—you might not keep playing the clueless one.

Not always. Helmets that are improperly worn are useless, and my point is people assume bicyclists with helmets are responsible and without helmets are irresponsible. I had my helmet torn off my head in one of my own crashes, and it was fastened and positioned properly. Had that have been in a collision with a car, it could have easily been noted in a police report that I wasn’t wearing one, framing me as irresponsible to the reader (judge).

“Why would the police do something like that?”

That’s exactly the question many people are asking here. Windshield bias maybe? I wouldn’t say salary is relevant here, but police officers are often required to present their cases in court, months or even years after an event, so they will likely review their own reports before hearings, further reinforcing their views of events.

“The basic premise of claims made, that the police are unjustly blaming collisions having occurred, on people biking, lacks substance.”

I’ve not made that claim. The claim that I made is that language can frame parties as more or less ‘innocent’ or ‘guilty’ to the reader. News media can ‘lean’ one way or the other depending on facts that are omitted (or ‘fake’ – the big word these days), or even which facts it chooses to emphasize. Police reports incorporate the viewpoint of the writer, just as anything else. They certainly may be framed – intentionally or not – to ‘exonerate’ a driver or ‘implicate’ a bicyclist or pedestrian.

Does that correlate to whether drivers are cited or convicted? Well, doesn’t seem like many drivers get cited or convicted, and California Highway Patrol has gone so far as to document that bicyclists are at fault in a majority of collisions. So despite having had to take classes to learn to ride defensively to reduce the number of near-misses I’ve had, and despite literally having had to jump out of the way twice in the last six weeks while walking across marked crosswalks on a walk light, and despite radical increases in the numbers of hit and runs and pedestrian fatalities, people will always read selectively, just as they will write selectively.

The fact that someone was run over by someone driving a motor vehicle, does not back up streetsblog’s apparent assumption that, my words again: “…police are “exonerating” people driving and involved in collisions, …”.

What streetsblog, or anyone else feeling that the police are indeed, deliberately allowing people they know are guilty of something, have the facts before them to prove it, and are on the spot dismissing relevant charges against such person…needs to do, is if the facts are there, dig up the facts to prove that the police are doing this; streetsblog hasn’t done so.

Did you click on the first link? An NYPD officer in a van was talking on her phone and turned & ran someone over and killed someone in a crosswalk. The NYPD says that the victim should have known and accepted the risks for crossing the street!. No, I do not trust the NYPD to do anything except do their best to find ways to let drivers leave without being charged.

Why didn’t you post it in the comment to which I’m replying, so I wouldn’t have to guess which one you were referring to?

Streetsblog did not use that collision incident, or that story to make the claim it did in the story included in today’s roundup, that the police are ‘exonerating’ people that drive and are involved in collisions, from things the people driving have done wrong, and have been charged with.

It’s this fine point that I’m focused on, rather than the broader question of whether some of the people working as police, are deliberately and generally letting go without being charged, people driving and involved in collisions, they know are guilty of having done something wrong.

The collision discussed in the story you referred to, involved a police officer that was driving, rather than some average joe or jane, driving a motor vehicle, making that example one that might give people cause to consider that in that case, the police might have fuzzed over the facts because the person driving was one of their own.

He left hooks a cyclist who was traveling on the left-hand side of 1st Avenue in the bike lane. The NYPD says that the cyclist has the right of way, and yet ‘exonerates’ the driver by letting him go with no charges whatsoever — no failure to yield, no failure to exercise due care, no illegal maneuver. They eventually send him a ticket for a missing mirror, that’s it. The NYPD spokesman said, “He didn’t have any issues with his license, he was not driving under the influence, the victim sadly slipped off her bike.”

When asked whether the driver should have looked for people in the intersection, the NYPD spokesman said this:

“Well, I suppose you can say one or the other, but it seems like he probably didn’t see her, and she was going up north, he was making a left, he’s actually already into the intersection, he was already making the turn,” Nasser said. “She probably didn’t stop in time, and she slipped and fell under. . . . He’s already in, she tried to stop, she came off the bike, she slipped under the truck.”

In the story you provided a link to, I didn’t see your last paragraph quote by the NYPD spokesman…so I don’t know where you got it. It sounds as though the spokesperson’s words, rather than from a prepared statement, were made impromptu, gotten by the reporter in a spot interview.

I don’t think an impromptu oral statement in the form of an answer to a question from a reporter, is necessarily going to be a simple reporting statement.This particular NYPD spokesman’s words certainly weren’t. He more or less rambles along, speculating and trying to depict a possible scenario.

I’m wondering why the reporter either wasn’t able to, or didn’t take the opportunity if it was available, to ask the police spokesperson questions for example, as to whether the person driving the box truck signaled for lane changes, and made proper lane changes.

I am very wary and just plain dubious of the cancer/cycling story. Their are a lot of benefits from cycling but most cancers are not caused by lifestyle choices. Stories like these without a lot of real science behind them seem to imply that cancer is sort of like heart disease, something you brought on your self. Being close to people who have cancer and knowing many who succumbed, I think the last thing cancer patients need are people who think that their lifestyle had something do with them having cancer.

This is a recent NPR story about the role that bad luck plays in cancer. That said, luck is not everything, and there are things you can do to minimize your chances of getting the disease, including good diet an exercise. It is reasonable to see cycling as a potential part of that.

I would join you in strongly resisting any sort of victim-blaming for those contracting cancer. Fortunately, possible cases of lung cancer in smokers aside, I’ve not seen much of that around.

The NPR piece is a good example of scientific illiteracy in that it breathlessly covers one study with no attempt to put it in the context of the literature. It’s the scientific reporting equivalent of Breitbart’s approach to political coverage.

Some context:

Here we provide evidence that intrinsic risk factors contribute only modestly (less than ~10–30% of lifetime risk) to cancer development…Collectively, we conclude that cancer risk is heavily influenced by extrinsic factors. These results are important for strategizing cancer prevention, research and public health.

I think that using the term “Most” is hardly an absolute statement. in fact, most are not. It is one thing for physicians to inform patients, it is another for a very limited, unscientific article to “inform” us that we can have an almost 50% reduction of getting cancer???? (No mention what kinds) with simple exercise. That would be news to the thousands of researchers studying mutated DNA cell structure and immunotherapy research. I tend to give a bit more credence to those.

Well, first of all, I reject the victim-blaming tone you’re using with respect to heart disease. Particularly since the medical establishment spent decades feeding us bad advice on the matter. (For those who haven’t caught up with 21st century developments on this front, saturated fat has largely been exonerated, and it’s increasingly looking like sugar – or possibly high carb intake generally – is the primary villain here).

Both cancer and heart disease are complex and multi-factorial, with hereditary, environmental, lifestyle and just plain randomness factors all playing a role. It is not acceptable to blame the victims of either disease. (And by the way, it increasingly looking like sugars – or, possibly more specifically, elevated insulin levels – play at least as strong a role in promoting cancer as they do in promoting the other “western” or “modernity” diseases like heart disease, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, gout and hypertension).

It is also not okay in the case of any these diseases to deny that lifestyle choices play a strong role in risk. Again, NOT to blame those who get sick! But to help everyone else reduce their risk.

With emerging knowledge about the risk factors of this devastating ailment, it will be tempting and wrong to start blaming the victims. It will be equally wrong to avoid using this new knowledge to advise people on how to reduce their risk.

It’s even free to download the BMJ PDF of the article right now, so there is no reason not to read the actual research report. It’s a typical statistical population study based data captured in the UK Biobank between 2007 and 2010 from the general UK population. Assuming Biobank participants answered honestly about their commuting habits, I expect the results are reasonably sound.

The DMV judge declined to take any action against the driver because she only had the preliminary (and incorrect) police report, and the NYPD highway patrol detective didn’t bother to show up. The judge refused to look at a detailed 100-page highway patrol report that the family had brought with them, and had to sit through this hearing while the judge repeatedly apologized to the driver for the inconvenience of being held accountable for reckless driving.

I don’t think what we’re talking about here is adequately captured by that phrase. This is not about whether we like your viewpoint, but rather whether that viewpoint, as stated, passes muster, withstands scrutiny, makes sense, persuades. To suggest that we simply don’t ‘like’ your viewpoint, as if this were a matter of personal preference is, an insult to those who are engaging with you on these viewpoints you present here.

wspob – “Before responding to them, I try to read everyone’s comments with great care, and with the respect due what they have to say.. If someone offers good information, or a constructive point of view, I like letting them know, and adding to it if I have something to offer also. I respect and appreciate that type of comment.”

Must be a very high bar. I can recall this happening only a handful of times over the past 8 years +/-.

“When someone uses their opportunity to comment, to be mean, or to say or insinuate something nasty about somebody that’s merely expressing a different, legitimate and civil point of view…they lose my respect.”

That is the only other possibility? Having closely read your thousands of posts here over the years I can say with some confidence that only a tiny fraction include what you characterize as respect and appreciation for the commenter to whom you’re responding I have to infer from your binary comment classification system that you think 99+% of those comments here are nasty rather than constructive. Or did I misread what you wrote?